HINDUSTAN POLES CORPORATION Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXISE CALCUTTA
LAWS(SC)-2006-3-39
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on March 27,2006

HINDUSTAN POLES CORPORATION Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

PRACHI INDUSTRIES VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CHANDIGARH [LAWS(SC)-2008-3-63] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. TAJ FIRE WORKS INDUSTRIES SIVAKASI [LAWS(MAD)-2006-6-254] [REFERRED TO]
PUSHPANJALI SILK PRIVATE LIMITED VS. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(MAD)-2006-7-131] [REFERRED TO]
CHEM TRADE INDIA (P) LTD. VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2009-12-48] [REFERRED TO]
L.R. SHARMA AND CO. VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2010-12-343] [REFERRED TO]
GOYAL MOTOR PARTS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2010-3-203] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BANGALORE VS. OSNAR CHEMICAL PVT LTD [LAWS(SC)-2012-1-18] [REFERRED TO]
ALUMAYER INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. COMMR. OF CUS. & C. EX., HYDERABAD-IV [LAWS(CE)-2011-3-54] [REFERRED TO]
NORTH EASTERN TUBES LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., GUWAHATI [LAWS(CE)-2012-3-49] [REFERRED TO]
COMMR. OF C. EX. , J & K, JAMMU VS. NORTH SUN ENTERPRISES INDUSTRIAL ESTATE [LAWS(CE)-2012-7-86] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. NORTH EASTERN TUBES LTD. VS. COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, GUWAHATI [LAWS(CE)-2012-4-120] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP ROHMETRA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2015-4-40] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. AGRAWAL ALUMINUM VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER A/E CIRCLE-III [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-10-78] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. CHAMPDANY INDUSTRIES LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2009-9-10] [REFERRED TO]
WALCHANDNAGAR INDUSTRIES LTD VS. SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2010-12-265] [REFERRED TO]
COMMR. OF CUS. & C. EX., HYDERABAD-II VS. AVECO VISCOMM PRIVATE LTD. [LAWS(CE)-2010-9-53] [REFERRED TO]
COMMR. OF C. EX., BHUBANESWAR-I VS. BIDYASREE TRADING CORPN. [LAWS(CE)-2007-1-125] [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(ST)-2014-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX, U.P. VS. M/S. A.R. THERMOSETS (PVT.) LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2016-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, 143, NEW BARADWARI, JAMSHEDPUR 831001 VS. M/S. CASTIINGS (INDIA) INC., PLOT NO. 29, IVTH PHASE, ADITYAPUR INDUSTRIAL AREA, GAMHARIA, JAMSHEDPUR [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-8-85] [REFERRED TO]
SHRIKISHAN & COMPANY VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX, RAIPUR [LAWS(CHH)-2018-6-7] [REFERRED TO]
INDUS INTEGRATED INFORMATION MGMT. LTD. VS. PR. COMMR. OF S.T. [LAWS(CAL)-2017-3-149] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J. - (1.)A short question involved in these appeals is whether the process undertaken by the appellants for bringing into existence the resultant Stepped Transmission Poles amounts to manufacture under the provisions of the Section 2(f) of the Central Excises Act, 1944. Section 2(f) of the said Act reads as under : "Manufacture" includes any process (i) incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product; (ii) which is specified in relation to any goods in the section or Chapter notes of [The First Schedule] to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) as amounting to [manufacture; or]
(2.)THE word "manufacture" is a compound word of Latin origin derived from the words "manu," by hand and "facere," to do, to make, to form, but the meaning is not confined to that which is done by hand alone, but by machinery as well (In re Tecopa Mm Etc Co 110 Fed 120, 121 )
The following passage in the Permanent Edition of Words and Phrases was referred to with approval in Delhi Cloth and General Mills AIR 1963 SC 791 at page 795 Manufacture' implies a change, but every change is not manufacture and yet every change of an article is the result of treatment, labour and manipulation But something more is necessary and there must be transformation, a new and different article must emerge having a distinctive name character or use

Our endeavour in the instant case would be to examine the activity of the appellant in the light of legislative intention as encompassed in the said definition

(3.)IN these appeals, the appellants have challenged the show -cause -notice issued by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta 1 The said notice was issued on the ground that by the process of "welding" of electric resistant pipes/tubes of different diameters, which are duty paid, and purchased from the open market, results in a new product and, hence, is liable to excise duty under the Residuary Entry i.e. erstwhile Tariff Item 68 upto 27/2/1986, and thereafter under Tariff Item 7308 the period from 28/2/1986
In pursuance to the Finance Minister's Budget speech of 1984, a Study Group was constituted to review the Central Excise Tariff with a view to rationalize it The Study Group in its report has mainly recommended -

(1) To rationalize the Central Excise Tariff to make it more scientific and detailed one duly supported by formal Rules of Interpretation and clarificatory notes so as to avoid classification disputes, (2) To omit non -specific Tariff Item 68 and to re -classify the goods covered by it under the respective class of goods of new Tariff, (3) To incorporate the concept of 'manufacture' in the selective Tariff entries, wherever needed, (4) To minimize the multiplicity of effective rates of duty, (5) To extend Proforma Credit/Set -off procedure to all products with few exceptions (6) To devise long term flawless scheme for exemption to small scale sector, (7) To provide for the issue of administrative rulings on classification of goods, (8) Change in the departmental stand on classification of goods to have prospective effect only, and (9) Change in Excise procedures to make them more simplified with a view to avoid complications and disputes

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.